Introduction to Sociometry

SOCIOMETRY

The word sociometry comes from the Latin “socius,” meaning social and the Latin
“metrum,” meaning measure. As these roots imply, sociometry is a way of measuring the
degree of relatedness among people. Measurement of relatedness can be useful not only in the
assessment of behavior within groups, but also for interventions to bring about positive
change and for determining the extent of change. For a work group, sociometry can be a
powerful tool for reducing conflict and improving communication because it allows the
group to see itself objectively and to analyze its own dynamics. It is also a powerful tool for
assessing dynamics and development in groups devoted to therapy or training.

Jacob Levy Moreno coined the term sociometry and conducted the first long-range
sociometric study from 1932-38 at the New York State Training School for Girls in Hudson,
New York. As part of this study, Moreno used sociometric techniques to assign residents to
various residential cottages. He found that assignments on the basis of sociometry
substantially reduced the number of runaways from the facility. (Moreno, 1953, p. 527).
Many more sociometric studies have been conducted since, by Moreno and others, in
settings including other schools, the military, therapy groups, and business corporations.

A useful working definition of sociometry is that it is a methodology for tracking the

energy vectors of interpersonal relationships in a group. It shows the patterns of how
individuals associate with each other when acting as a group toward a specified end or goal
(Criswell in Moreno, 1960, p. 140). Moreno himself defined sociometry as “the
mathematical study of psychological properties of populations, the experimental
technique of and the results obtained by application of quantitative methods” (Moreno,
1953, pp. 15-16).

Sociometry is based on the fact that people make choices in interpersonal

relationships. Whenever people gather, they make choices--where to sit or stand; choices
about who is perceived as friendly and who not, who is central to the group, who is rejected,

sociometry_intro_original.docx 1 © Chris Hoffman 6/2000

who is isolated. As Moreno says, “Choices are fundamental facts in all ongoing human
relations, choices of people and choices of things. It is immaterial whether the motivations
are known to the chooser or not; it is immaterial whether [the choices] are inarticulate or
highly expressive, whether rational or irrational. They do not require any special justification
as long as they are spontaneous and true to the self of the chooser. They are facts of the
first existential order.” (Moreno, 1953, p. 720).

SOCIOMETRIC CRITERIA

Choices are always made on some basis or criterion. The criterion may be subjective,
such as an intuitive feeling of liking or disliking a person on first impression. The criterion
may be more objective and conscious, such as knowing that a person does or does not have
certain skills needed for the group task.

When members of a group are asked to choose others in the group based on a
specific criteria, everyone in the group can make choices and describe why the choices were
made. From these choices a description emerges of the networks inside the group. A
drawing, like a map, of those networks is called a sociogram. The data for the sociogram may
also be displayed as a table or matrix of each person’s choices. Such a table is called a
sociomatrix.

A SIMPLE EXAMPLE

A simple example of applied sociometry is to have group members make a selection

on the basis of a simple, non-threatening criterion. Ask everyone in the group to stand up
and then say: “Whom in this group would you choose to take sandwich orders from
everyone in this room, go to the store, and come back with the right sandwiches and the
right change? Show your choice by placing your right hand on the shoulder of the person
you choose. Move about the room as you need to in order to make your choice. There are
only two requirements: (1) you may choose only one person and (2) you must choose
someone.” Typically the group members will make their choices after only a little hesitation.

This exercise may be repeated several times in the period of just a few minutes using
different criteria each time. The exercise graphically illustrates not only the social reality of

sociometry_intro_original.docx 2 © Chris Hoffman 6/2000

choice-making, but also the fact that different criteria evoke different patterns of choices.
The sandwich money criterion would probably identify someone who is good with details.
An intuitive, big picture, future-oriented person would be likely to be identified by this
criterion: “If you had to project a new cultural phenomenon, unheard of at this point in
time, whom in this room would you ask for information?”

Regardless of the criterion, the person who receives the most hands on his or her
shoulder is what is known as the sociometric star for that specific criterion. Other sociometric
relationships which may be observed are mutuals , where two people choose each other;
chains, where person A chooses person B who chooses person C who chooses person D and
so on; and gaps or cleavages when clusters of people have chosen each other but no one in
any cluster has chosen anyone in any other cluster.

Here are some other sample criteria that could be used for this exercise: Whom in this
room would you choose…
1. for advice on repairing the transmission of your car?
2. to generate creative ideas?
3. for support in taking risks?
4. to relay messages accurately?
5. for help in dealing with a difficult client?
6. to run a business for profit?
7. to get reliable information on top management decisions?
8. to keep a confidence?
9. who gives recognition for a job well done?
10. who has shown the most growth in the past year?

This "hands-on" exercise can be very helpful for teaching a group about sociometry
and about the reality of the informal organization. While the group is in each pattern, the
consultant can ask the group to describe the pattern, how the pattern reflects “real life”, and
what the group would need to do to close up any cleavages. Participants learn very quickly
and concretely about the informal organization underlying their formal organization. As one
participant said, “It shows how we really feel, but we don’t say it very often.”

sociometry_intro_original.docx 3 © Chris Hoffman 6/2000

A MORE COMPLEX EXAMPLE

Suppose we want to know how much interpersonal trust exists within a small group
of six members. Let's call the group members Ann, Bob, Claire, Don, Edna, and Fred. For
the purposes of this example, we will use the following criterion: “I trust this person to keep
oral agreements and commitments, and not to undercut me or go behind my back.” We
will use the symbols “+” to indicate “High Trust”, “O” to indicate “Moderate Trust”, and “-
” to indicate “Distrust/Conflict”.

Next we interview each group member individually. When we have established

rapport, and have explained that all responses will be kept confidential, we ask the person we
are interviewing to rate every other person in the group, based on the criterion.

Say we are interviewing Ann. Ann rates the others as follows:

Bob +
Claire -
Don O
Edna +
Fred O
This means that Ann has high trust of Bob, distrusts or is in conflict with Claire, has
moderate trust of Don, and so on.

In the course of the interviews we can elicit details about all of these relationships.
We can ask Ann, for example, why she distrusts Claire, and Ann’s ideas about what Claire
could do to improve the situation.

After conducting all the interviews and obtaining ratings from everyone, the next
step is to chart all the responses in the sociomatrix.

Here is the sociomatrix for our sample group:

sociometry_intro_original.docx 4 © Chris Hoffman 6/2000

 You can see that Ann’s choices have been charted in Ann’s row: Ann’s High Trust
(+) rating of Bob is in the cell where Ann’s row intersects Bob’s column, her
Distrust/Conflict (-) rating of Claire is in the cell where Ann’s row intersects Claire’s
column, etc.

This matrix already tells us a great deal about the group dynamics. With a little
analysis the matrix becomes something like an x-ray or CAT scan of the group’s
interpersonal relationships. Columns showing a large percentage of +’s can identify the
informal leader(s) of the group. Columns showing -’s can identify those people the group
may be close to rejecting. Rows showing all O’s or all +’s may highlight people who fear
self-disclosure or people who are undifferentiated in social relationships.

Another important pattern to look for is what are called mutuals. A mutual occurs
when I rate you at the same level you rate me. A positive mutual is when we both rate each
other +; a negative mutual is when we both rate each other -. Positive mutuals show
bonding in a group. Negative mutuals show areas of conflict. The identification of negative
mutuals gives the consultant or therapist insight as to where to start to repair a dysfunctional
group.

sociometry_intro_original.docx 5 © Chris Hoffman 6/2000

 Here are the column totals, and mutuals for our sample group:

sociometry_intro_original.docx 6 © Chris Hoffman 6/2000

 We can see that the informal leaders are Bob and Edna, because they both received
the most +'s and received no -'s. A closer look at the sociomatrix shows that Ann and Claire
have mutual Distrust/Conflict.

If this were a work group and we were asked to improve the functioning of this
group, we could start by improving the relationship between Ann and Claire before bringing
the group together for teambuilding.

Constructing a sociomatrix for a small group like this one is a simple task, but when
the number of people in the group is more than about five or six, the clerical work and
calculations become quite tedious and open to error. With a large matrix, the identification
of mutuals begins to resemble a migraine headache. Fortunately there are computers.
Software exists to automate all the tedious calculations involved in creating a sociomatrix of
up to 60 people. The software produces not only the sociomatrix itself but also several
useful group and individual reports.

CRITERION SELECTION

The selection of the appropriate criterion makes or breaks the sociometric

intervention. As in all data-collection in the social sciences, the answers you get depend on
the questions you ask. Any question will elicit information but unless the right question is
asked, the information may be confusing or distracting or irrelevant to the intervention’s
objective.

sociometry_intro_original.docx 7 © Chris Hoffman 6/2000

 A good criterion should present a meaningful choice to the person in as simple a
format as possible. For example: “Whom would you most like to have as part of this
[specified type of] work team [e.g.: auditing] to [work in this specified way] [e.g.: to audit remote
sites]?”.

The criterion must be like a surgeon’s knife: most effective when it cleanly isolates
the material of interest. In responding to the question, each person will choose based on an
individual interpretation of the criterion. These interpretations, or sub-criteria, for this
particular question could include: do I want a person who works hard, who is a power-
broker, who is amiable, a minority, etc. A clear statement of the criterion will tend to reduce
the number of interpretations and will therefore increase the reliability of the data.

SOME PRINCIPLES OF CRITERION SELECTION

 The criterion should be as simply stated and as straightforward as possible.

 The respondents should have some actual experience in reference to the criterion,
whether ex post facto or present (in Moreno's language, they are still “warmed up” to
them) otherwise the questions will not arouse any significant response.

 The criterion should be specific rather than general or vague. Vaguely defined criteria
evoke vague responses. (Note for example that “friendship” is actually a cluster of
criteria.)

 When possible, the criterion should be actual rather than hypothetical.

 A criterion is more powerful if it is one that has a potential for being acted upon. For
example, for incoming college freshmen the question “Whom would you choose as a
roommate for the year?” has more potential of being acted upon than the question
“Whom do you trust?”

 Moreno points out that the ideal criterion is one that helps further the life-goal of the
subject. “If the test procedure is identical with a life-goal of the subject he can never
feel himself to have been victimized or abused. Yet the same series of acts
performed of the subject’s own volition may be a ‘test’ in the mind of the tester”

sociometry_intro_original.docx 8 © Chris Hoffman 6/2000

 (Moreno, p. 105). Helping a college freshman select an appropriate roommate is an
example of a sociometric test that is in accord with the life-goal of the subject.

“It is easy to gain the cooperation of the people tested as soon as they come to think
of the test as an instrument to bring their wills to a wider realization, that it is not
only an instrument for exploring the status of a population, but primarily an
instrument to bring the population to a collective self-expression in respect to the
fundamental activities in which it is or is about to be involved.” (Moreno, 1953, pp.
680- 681).

As a general rule questions should be future oriented, imply how the results are to be
used, and specify the boundaries of the group (Hale, 1985). And last, but not least, the
criteria should be designed to keep the level of risk for the group appropriate to the
group’s cohesion and stage of development

sociometry_intro_original.docx 9 © Chris Hoffman 6/2000

Examples Of Criteria For Use In A Work Setting
(A) I trust this person to: Keep oral agreements and commitments, Work for win-win
solutions, and Not to undercut me or go behind my back.

+ = High Trust
O= Moderate
Trust
- = Distrust/Confl
ict

(B) Based on ability to work effectively as a team member, whom would you choose to work with
you on an important team project?
+ = I definitely WOULD WANT to have this person
on my team. O = I wouldn’t mind having
this person on my team.
- = I definitely would NOT WANT to have this person on my team.

(C) Consider each of your coworkers listed below and rate them as to how much or little you trust
each of them.
+ = High Trust
O = Moderate Trust
- = Distrust/Conflict
[Note: Example C is an example of what Moreno called “near-sociometric” because the criterion is somewhat
vague. You “trust” your coworkers to do or not do what? Keep secrets? Perform surgery on me? Example
A is more specific.]

(D)Consider each of your coworkers listed below. What is your level of trust to share your
feelings with each of them about issues at the workplace?

+ = High Trust
O= Moderate
Trust
- = Distrust/Confl
ict

sociometry_intro_original.docx 10 © Chris Hoffman 6/2000

 CRITERIA USED IN OTHER SETTINGS
(A)If you were going on pass what person (or persons) would you want to go on pass
with and what person (or persons) would you not want to go with?
(B)If you had leave to go home what person (or persons) would you want to invite to
your home and what person (or persons) would you not want to invite to your home?
(C)If you were told to pick the persons whom you wanted to live in a tent or barracks
with what person (or persons) would you choose and what person (or persons) would
you not choose?
(D) During an attack what person (or persons) would you choose to share a foxhole with
and what person (or persons) would you not choose to share a foxhole with?
(E) If you were to lead an advance through an enemy town what person (or persons) would
you choose to cover you and what person (or persons) would you not choose to cover
you?
(F) If you were wounded what person (or persons) would you choose to help you back to
an aid station and what person (or persons) would you not choose to help you back to
an aid station?

Summer Camp:
At camp, you like to do lots of things with other campers. In order to help the staff work out
your groups we would like you to tell us which campers you would like best to do things
with. Whom would you like to
(A) cabin with?
(B) go on a canoe trip with?
(C) to be in your favorite activity with?

sociometry_intro_original.docx 11 © Chris Hoffman 6/2000

VALIDITY
Does sociometry really measure something useful? Jane Mouton, Robert Blake and
Benjamin Fruchter reviewed the early applications of sociometry and concluded that the
number of sociometric choices do tend to predict such performance criteria as productivity,
combat effectiveness, training ability, and leadership. An inverse relationship also holds: the
number of sociometric choices received are negatively correlated with undesirable aspects of
behavior such as accident-proneness, sick bay attendance and frequency of disciplinary
charges” (Mouton, Blake, and Fruchter in Moreno, 1960, pp. 362 - 387). The more
frequently you are chosen, the less likely you are to exhibit the undesirable behavior.

Here are some representative early sociometric studies:

 One study found a significant positive correlation between group sociometric cohesion
and field performance of small military combat units (Goodacre, Daniel M., in Moreno,
1960 pp. 548 - 552).

 Voluntary re-grouping of construction workers based on sociometric choices resulted in a

superior level of output, a drop in monthly turnover, and 5% savings in total production
(Van Zelst, R. H. “Sociometrically Selected Work Teams Increase Production.” Personnel
Psychology, 1952, 5, 175- 186.) Another study of voluntary regrouping of construction
workers in which workers in the experimental groups chose their work partner resulted in
superior performance by the experimental group on factors of job satisfaction, turnover
rate, index of labor cost, index of material cost. Financial savings were such that every 29th
house was “free,” relative to the cost of construction by the control group (Van Zelst, R. H.
“Validation of a Sociometric Regrouping Procedure.” Journal of Abnormal Social
Psychology, 1952, 47, 299-301).

sociometry_intro_original.docx 12 © Chris Hoffman 6/2000

 Sociometric ratings by coworkers for desirability as work partners and other job related
activities correlate with positive attitudes toward work and with quality and quantity of
performance on the job (Springer, Doris. “Ratings of Candidates for Promotion by
Co-workers and Supervisors.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 1953, 37, 347-351; Van
Zelst, R. H. “Worker Popularity and Job Satisfaction.” Personnel Psychology, 1951, 4,
405 - 412).

 Accident proneness is inversely correlated with sociometric choices received. (Speroff,

B., and W. Kerr. “Steel Mill ‘Hot Strip’ Accidents and Interpersonal Desirability
Values.” Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1952, 8, 89-91.; Fuller, E. M., and H. A. Baune.
“Injury-Proneness and Adjustment in a Second Grade.” Sociometry, 1951, 14, 210 - 225;
Zeleny, L. D. “Selection of Compatible Flying Partners.” American Journal of
Sociology, 1947, 52, 424 - 431.)

 Consistent with these findings about safety are studies in military settings which show that
flight accidents, frequency of sick bay attendance, and number of disciplinary offenses are
negatively related with the number of sociometric choices received when the criterion
measures a positive aspect of behavior (Zeleny, L. D. “Selection of Compatible Flying
Partners.” American Journal of Sociology, 1947, 52, 424 - 431; French, R. L. ”Sociometric
Status and Individual Adjustment among Naval Recruits.” Journal of Abnormal Social
Psychology, 1951, 46, 64 - 72.)

 A study of leadership showed that when leaders were chosen by sociometric procedures,
their groups were more efficient than when members not seen as leaders were assigned that
role (Rock, M. L., and E. N. Hay. “Investigation of the Use of Tests as a Predictor of
Leadership and Group Effectiveness in a Job Evaluation Situation.” Journal of Social
Psychology, 1953, 38, 109 - 119.)

 A study of navy pilots suggested that low morale and cliques may result when the official
leader is not a sociometric star (Jenkins, John G. in Moreno, 1960 pp. 560 - 567).

 A study of choices of playmates in fourth-grade children showed a high correlation

between the choices children made on the sociometric test and the choices children made in
actual play (Byrd, Eugene. “A Study of Validity and Constancy of Choices in a Sociometric
Test. Sociometry. Vol. IX (1946), Nos. 2-3, 21, cited in Northway (1967)).

sociometry_intro_original.docx 13 © Chris Hoffman 6/2000

 APPLICATIONS OF SOCIOMETRY IN THE WORK SETTING

The typical process for a sociometric intervention in an organization follows these

basic steps:
(1) Identify the group to be studied,
(2) Develop the criterion,
(3) Establish rapport / warm-up,
(4) Gather sociometric data,
(5) Analyze and interpret dat
: (a) to individuals, prior to group meeting, or
(b) in a group setting,
(7) Develop and implement action plans,
(8) Post-test (optional).

My colleagues and I have used sociometry in a corporate setting to diagnose

problems, to influence group development, and to measure results of organizational
development interventions. In one instance (Hoffman et al, 1992) we used the sociometric
data to help work groups diagnose their own problems and to document the effectiveness
of the intervention. Pre/post sociometric measurements showed that Distrust/Antagonism
had been cut in half and High Trust had increased by 19% over the course of the
intervention.

More recently I was asked to help a group with "teambuilding." I began by

interviewing all nine members of the group and collecting sociometric ratings from each. An
analysis of the sociometric data showed that the "team problem" was primarily a conflict
between two individuals on the team. I gave sociometric feedback individually to every
member of the team, telling each person where he or she stood in relation to the rest of the
group. The sociometric data allowed me to do this without breaking confidentiality. (Each
person received an individualized report. A pie chart on the report showed the percentage
of positive, negative and neutral choices received by that person.) From the interview data I
was also able to give each person positive reinforcement for effective behaviors and specific
corrective coaching for ineffective behaviors, again without breaking confidentiality.

sociometry_intro_original.docx 14 © Chris Hoffman 6/2000

 The sociometric data so affected the individuals in conflict that they were able to use
the coaching and resolve the conflict on their own. We never had to hold a "teambuilding"
session. This saved hours of productive time. A post-test with the sociometric instrument
showed that the negative choices made by the group had dropped from 11 to zero. Neutral
choices went from 16 to 21 and positive choices increased from 45 to 50. Informal
feedback from the group's secretary confirmed that things were "really better."

sociometry_intro_original.docx 15 © Chris Hoffman 6/2000

 REFERENCES & SOURCES

Hale, Ann E. (1985) Conducting Clinical Sociometric Explorations: A Manual. Roanoke, Virginia:
Royal Publishing Company.
Hoffman, Chris, Wilcox, L., Gomez, E. & Hollander, C. (1992). Sociometric Applications
in a Corporate Environment, Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama & Sociometry,
45, 3-16.
Hollander, Carl E. (1978) An Introduction to Sociogram Construction. Denver, Colorado: Snow
Lion Press, Inc. Available at the Colorado Psychodrama Center, 350 South Garfield,
Denver CO, 303-322-8000.
Moreno, Jacob Levy (1934, Revised edition 1953). Who Shall Survive? Beacon, NY:
Beacon House.
Moreno, Jacob Levy (1960). The Sociometry Reader. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press.
Northway, Mary L. (1967). A Primer of Sociometry. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.

sociometry_intro_original.docx 16 © Chris Hoffman 6/2000